User talk:J072318

July 2018[edit]

Hello. Your recent edit to Chippewa Valley High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion. J072318 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a suggestion. Eminem's kid had an article at one time, and that article was removed so her name redirects to her dad's article. That means that definitively, she is not notable. Any further attempts to add her to the above article will be considered disruptive. Notable has an objective definition here, and although there is some imprecision in it, there is none in this case. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t add her name again, but isn’t she notable? She is a part of popular culture

J072318, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi J072318! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Zara Larsson, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zara Larsson[edit]

I will be sure to add a reliable citation. J072318 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "reliable citation" for that kind of content. Add it again and I will block you per WP:NOTHERE--I have severe doubts already about what you're doing here. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: They added it again [1] HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you, didn't I? You now have 31 hours to read up on our policies, especially WP:BLP. HickoryOughtShirt, I know I said I'd block indefinitely, but who knows. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm jealous, Drmies. HickoryOughtShirt?4 got an impersonator in less than 8 months. It took me four years. John from Idegon (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I got a long list. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete my contributive edit to the Frances Cobain article? Or does that happen automatically when a user is blocked?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

J072318 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Will make more objective contributions

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

J072318 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage, and make useful contributions instead.

Decline reason:

You need to actually explain all of those and not just copy and paste the text back here. What were you blocked for? What steps will you take to stop? What useful contributions do you intend to make? 331dot (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

J072318 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for “vandalism.” From now on, I will ensure my contributions to Wiki, especially to biographies, will be objective, relevant, and contain no original research.

Decline reason:

This really isn't any more convincing than your last effort, and gives me some concerns that 31 hours was nowhere near long enough. The block expires in a couple of hours anyway, so I guess we'll see what you do then. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

August 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lauren Southern, you may be blocked from editing. wumbolo ^^^ 16:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]